I am not sure what you are going on about there. Counter protesting white supremacists groups is now radical left? I missed the part where the counter protests killed anybody. Or surrounded those against them with torches and guns.

The president has claimed there was a radical left fraction there in order to make it a both sides do it situation. I am sure there were tussels. But not sure how this can be made out to be anything but horror at what a fair number of white supremacists did.

I have only heard Trump and his defenders in the media make any claims like that.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

There is alot to unpack age here.

1. Being a left or liberal leaning group does not make the group socialist. No more than a conservative group would be the same as a hate group in and of itself.

2. What does inaugration day have to do with the current issue?

3. The counter protests were much smaller than the main protests in the recent example.

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

You are going to need to be clearer. Who did the left kill at the recent event? And if you are comparing moral equivalency than are those with Nazi and confederate flags with torches and guns now on equal footing with unarmed counter protesters?

Is that what the right is now? If extreme left is standing against that than I think we should be very afraid for the direction of the country if accepting that sort of hatred is ok.

Trump said, “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now.” That false equivalency is revealed as soon as you answer which side hit people with a car and killed someone from the other. Hint: it wasn’t the “very violent” side.

Trump has called out everyone under the sun by name when he wants to lambast them. He criticized Obama for not using the words “Islamic terrorism.” Trump never minces words unless he’s purposefully equivocating. What is he equivocating here? Racist hatemongers and their protesters when he says that “many sides” are to blame for the violence in Charlottesville and he emphasized the words “many sides” by repeating them. On a very technical level, that’s true. If protesters weren’t there, they wouldn’t have clashed with the racists. If Heather Heyer had not been there, an alt-right neo-Nazi would not have killed her. But she was there and she was killed. Is she responsible or is James Fields, Jr., the man who purposefully ran her over with a car? Trump thinks both Heyer and Fields are to blame! Trump’s blaming both sides is only important if the message he’s trying to convey is a wink to the white supremacists who helped put Trump in office that he is sympathetic to them. And this is exactly how many white supremacists have interpreted it. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke responded, “Thank you President Trump for your honesty and courage to tell the truth.” White nationalist leader Richard B. Spencer wrote, “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth.” Chuck Schumer fittingly remarked, “By saying he is not taking sides, Donald Trump clearly is. When David Duke and white supremacists cheer, you’re doing it very, very wrong.”

That Trump even took two days to denounce the white nationalists who lauded his name at the Charlottesville rally speaks volumes. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch tweeted, “We should call evil by its name. My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” But it’s clear now that Trump’s denunciation of white supremacists on Monday was forced upon him by staff, that he resented it, and because he has no discipline, he couldn’t keep that bottled in and went on his tirade yesterday. The message is clear. The context – Obama birtherism, Mexican rapists, the Muslim ban, the transgender ban, the wall – is clear. Trump’s only defense is to engage in the vagueness of plausible deniability. For any other contemporary president, this would have been a no-brainer. Other Republicans like Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, Lindsay Graham, Will Hurd, John Kasich, John McCain, Jerry Moran, and Marco Rubio all criticized Trump by name for his reaction.

Trump defenders can only talk about how some of what he said was technically true while completely missing the spirit of what he said. Some other Republicans get this. Republican Rep, Ed Royce, wrote, “The President needs to clearly and categorically reject white supremacists. No excuses. No ambiguity.” Jeb Bush wrote, “I urge POTUS to unite the country, not parse the assignment of blame for the events in Charlottesville.” Mitch McConnell stated, “There are no good neo-Nazis, and those who espouse their views are not supporters of American ideals and freedoms.” Mitt Romney tweeted, “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

Even if a few Southerners don’t see statues of Confederate leaders and generals as racist, that’s an extreme degree of compartmentalizing. These Confederates fought to uphold slavery. That’s is their claim to fame and they shouldn’t be honored for that. Aside from the rare neo-Nazi, you don’t see Germans clamoring for Hitler statues even though Hitler is part of their heritage. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis committed treason, they were traitors to their country, their actions in the Civil War led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands, and they tried to perpetuate slavery, the most abhorrent institution ever established in the United States of America. Why should that be honored? Also note that most of these statues and monuments were erected between 1900 and 1930, the era of Jim Crow laws, and again between 1956-1965, the era of the civil rights movement. These were times when racial conflict was highest and the messaging behind these monuments is white supremacy.

Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides,” which is a purely subjective claim that can’t be proven, but again, it clearly sends a positive message to the white supremacists. Anyone’s willingness to march alongside the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis chanting “Sieg Heil” and “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us” while carrying swastikas calls into question where their moral compass lies. Here are some examples of the hate on display at that rally:

Trump’s insinuation that George Washington is under attack because Robert E. Lee is under attack is about as disingenuous as James Woods implying that the Marine Corps War Memorial is the equivalent of Robert E. Lee statues in the eyes of the left. George Washington owned slaves in a time in which that was acceptable and he freed his slaves in his will. George Washington signed the Slave Trade Act of 1794 to curb the slave trade, and he did not actively fight to sustain slavery as an institution when times had changed to make slavery an even graver moral issue. A George Washington statue is not implicitly pro-slavery any more than it’s pro-dentures. It’s to celebrate Washington’s part in the American Revolution and creating the United States of America. A Robert E. Lee statue is implicitly pro-slavery. What are you celebrating about him if not that? That’s what he fought for, that’s what he’s known for, and he’d be an afterthought to history had he not done so. If Trump can’t understand that, he’s not smart enough to be President of the United States.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

Okay. But trying to equate these two sides to one another only serves to validate supremacy (be it white or otherwise) as a respectable ideology, which it isn't. History has shown that going down this road ends in a massive detriment to society.

There's no moral ambiguity between white supremacists and the people who protest against them, and if you're taking a neutral position between the two then you're pretty much part of the problem.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

So which side did the killing again? Only the alt-right side. I don't see how you can be a Jesus Fan while defending racists. I can't believe I'm quoting Mitt Romney: No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

Actually , we had a Racist in chief under president Obama, as He had little regard for calling out islamic terrorists, and he pretty much tried to undermined the Judeo Christian culture that America was founded upon...

Remember rev Wright, and His anti white spewing, anti american tirades, and the former president just sat there over 20 years and enjoyed them?

And President trump is against All racists, both of the extreme right/left.

Those in Media/press are blind to the leftists thugs in their ranks, and their hatred for trump is so intense that IF he was jesus Himself in the WH, they would find fault with him!

Actually , we had a Racist in chief under president Obama, as He had little regard for calling out islamic terrorists, and he pretty much tried to undermined the Judeo Christian culture that America was founded upon...

How did Obama undermine Christian culture when you clearly state below that he attended church? And what does not calling out Islamic terrorists (which Obama in fact did do) have to do with racism?

Quote:

Remember rev Wright, and His anti white spewing, anti american tirades, and the former president just sat there over 20 years and enjoyed them?

Wright's views were informed by a very real history of unequal treatment of blacks. I imagine that Obama understood that, even if he didn't agree with Wright's sentiment.

Quote:

And President trump is against All racists, both of the extreme right/left.

Then why does he have right-wing racists like Steven Bannon in his administration? Why did he take so long to disavow David Duke?

Quote:

Those in Media/press are blind to the leftists thugs in their ranks, and their hatred for trump is so intense that IF he was jesus Himself in the WH, they would find fault with him!

The irony here is too thick. If he was Jesus himself? Maybe people hate Trump because he's more unlike Jesus than any other President before him? Groping women; fawning over prepubescent teens; multiple divorces; accusations of rape; lies against easily provable facts; this is all just the tip of the iceberg. Building walls against Mexico goes counter to "Love thy neighbor." Banning Muslims goes counter to "Turn the other cheek." I don't see how you, a self-proclaimed follower of Christs teachings, can excuse Trump in the least.

Actually , we had a Racist in chief under president Obama, as He had little regard for calling out islamic terrorists, and he pretty much tried to undermined the Judeo Christian culture that America was founded upon...

Quote:

Remember rev Wright, and His anti white spewing, anti american tirades, and the former president just sat there over 20 years and enjoyed them?

Quote:

And President trump is against All racists, both of the extreme right/left.

Quote:

Those in Media/press are blind to the leftists thugs in their ranks, and their hatred for trump is so intense that IF he was jesus Himself in the WH, they would find fault with him!

Would you like to take another stab at this? I find it hard to take anyone seriously when they go off on an irrational rant.

Actually , we had a Racist in chief under president Obama, as He had little regard for calling out islamic terrorists, and he pretty much tried to undermined the Judeo Christian culture that America was founded upon...

Quote:

How did Obama undermine Christian culture when you clearly state below that he attended church? And what does not calling out Islamic terrorists (which Obama in fact did do) have to do with racism?

Exactly. Saying Obama never called out Islamic terrorists is an utter lie. Any quick Google search will quickly turn up examples:

Remember rev Wright, and His anti white spewing, anti american tirades, and the former president just sat there over 20 years and enjoyed them?

Quote:

Wright's views were informed by a very real history of unequal treatment of blacks. I imagine that Obama understood that, even if he didn't agree with Wright's sentiment.

Right. Obama repudiated Wright publically about their differences.

Quote:

Quote:

Those in Media/press are blind to the leftists thugs in their ranks, and their hatred for trump is so intense that IF he was jesus Himself in the WH, they would find fault with him!

Quote:

The irony here is too thick. If he was Jesus himself? Maybe people hate Trump because he's more unlike Jesus than any other President before him? Groping women; fawning over prepubescent teens; multiple divorces; accusations of rape; lies against easily provable facts; this is all just the tip of the iceberg. Building walls against Mexico goes counter to "Love thy neighbor." Banning Muslims goes counter to "Turn the other cheek." I don't see how you, a self-proclaimed follower of Christs teachings, can excuse Trump in the least.

Exactly. In terms of following the teachings of Christ, Trump is the least Christian-like U.S. President of the 20th and 21st centuries. That Evangelicals support him stinks of hypocrisy and shows that politics is more important to them than religion.

Quote:

Also, why are we still talking about Obama? He's no longer President.

When Trump supporters can't deny Trump's awfulness, they try to change the subject.

I heard two talk show host on the radio this morning saying that a New York Times reporter had tweeted that Antifa members were there with clubs and flamethrowers but the post was deleted after an hour. Of course, I don't know where they got that information.

There is this picture of a flamethrower attack from Charlottesville.

Radical fringe groups on all sides are detestable. One asshole with a car was able to kill an innocent and injure dozens other. One nut with a gun tried to assassinate members of Congress. Three scumbags with boxcutters killed 3000 people.

And President trump is against All racists, both of the extreme right/left.

President Trump is racist and he's definitely not against himself. He's retweeted white supremacists many times and continues to do so today. He said an American-born judge could not be unbiased because of his Mexican heritage. When asked to disavow the KKK's David Duke, Trump initially refused. He generalized Mexican immigrants as rapists. He wants a blanket ban on Muslims from several Muslim-majority countries. Trump refused to disavow Japanese internment camps!

Trump and his father's company have a long history of racial discrimination in renting out their properties. When Clinton brought this up in their 9/26/2016 debate, Trump did not even try to deny it. His defense was that “many other companies throughout the country” were sued for the same thing, but he was able to settle “with no admission of guilt.”

In 1989, Trump took out full-page ads in all 4 major NYC newspapers calling for the execution of 1 Hispanic and 4 black youths known as the Central Park Five, who were accused of raping a jogger. Even after DNA evidence exonerated them after years of false imprisonment, Trump still claims they are guilty even though another man has confessed to it and DNA evidence confirmed it. Trump reiterated his claim as recently as 2016.

So, JF, you're wrong on Trump.

Quote:

Those in Media/press are blind to the leftists thugs in their ranks, and their hatred for trump is so intense that IF he was jesus Himself in the WH, they would find fault with him!

Are you saying that Trump has no faults and the media is making all this up? If you think Trump does have faults, please tell me what you think they are.

So...being surrounded by armed individuals with torches and starting the beating is a both sides do it situation?

By almost all accounts, outside of Trump's and some fairly conservative ones, the violence seems to have overwhelming come from the white supremacists. And it is not hard to find that in interviews either, many were looking to hurt more people and bragging about it.

Violence is never good, but I feel that by saying everybody in this instance is equally bad is ignoring most news stories of the event and dignifying what the Neo-Nazi and similar groups were doing. I mean there were more of them and they were heavily armed but the other side swang back too.

I do not see a direct connection to the guy that shot the House Rep. It was deplorable too but was not part of an organized movement of violence and hate. He appeared to be a sick and twisted man but that was most of it.

That there is now a debate to sort of dignify what happened with the both side thing in this instance seems a bit insulting to what the US should stand for.

That there are extreme liberal views or those that take them too far is true, but that is not really at the heart of this discussion at the moment or make it ok either. As a country we are also afraid to talk about far right domestic terrorism as well.

I think the most disturbing thing is how the president has handled this. Calling out both sides and waiting ages to do it. He has no problem calling out immigrants or Muslims for things that an individual did or in some cases outright falsehoods but will not condemn anything done by those that even extensively fall under the same umbrella.

That should scare everyone. And that some support what he is saying is scary.

So...being surrounded by armed individuals with torches and starting the beating is a both sides do it situation?

Not at all. I was responding to a comment you made above but did it in the wrong post. Apologies.

"I am not sure what you are going on about there. Counter protesting white supremacists groups is now radical left? I missed the part where the counter protests killed anybody. Or surrounded those against them with torches and guns. "

My point was that there were militant leftist groups there also. I generally stay out of politics, but I've read your posts on the numerous boards and respect your opinion. If you say Antifa wasn't there I'll accept it and leave the conversation.

Quote:

By almost all accounts, outside of Trump's and some fairly conservative ones, the violence seems to have overwhelming come from the white supremacists. And it is not hard to find that in interviews either, many were looking to hurt more people and bragging about it.

According to the Virginia State Police, aside from Fields driving the car into the crowd, no one else went to the hospital and there was no property damage.

Violence is never good, but I feel that by saying everybody in this instance is equally bad is ignoring most news stories of the event and dignifying what the Neo-Nazi and similar groups were doing. I mean there were more of them and they were heavily armed but the other side swang back too.

Quote:

I do not see a direct connection to the guy that shot the House Rep. It was deplorable too but was not part of an organized movement of violence and hate. He appeared to be a sick and twisted man but that was most of it.

Fields was part of an organized hate movement but he was still a lone individual. It wasn't a planned attack. He wasn't even charged with first-degree murder. I feel dirty. Honestly, I'm not defending Nazis.

Quote:

That there is now a debate to sort of dignify what happened with the both side thing in this instance seems a bit insulting to what the US should stand for.

Quote:

That there are extreme liberal views or those that take them too far is true, but that is not really at the heart of this discussion at the moment or make it ok either. As a country we are also afraid to talk about far right domestic terrorism as well.

Quote:

I think the most disturbing thing is how the president has handled this. Calling out both sides and waiting ages to do it. He has no problem calling out immigrants or Muslims for things that an individual did or in some cases outright falsehoods but will not condemn anything done by those that even extensively fall under the same umbrella.

Quote:

That should scare everyone. And that some support what he is saying is scary.

I've become jaded to the criticisms of Trump. I don't think he handled this well, but I also believe that people overblow everything with regard to him.

I think his leanings were pretty well known prior to this incident. My question is how far he leans. Is he mincing his words so as not to rile a huge group of voters he can rely on or does he truly share their ideology? Obviously either stance is distasteful but the latter is far more concerning.

Actually , we had a Racist in chief under president Obama, as He had little regard for calling out islamic terrorists, and he pretty much tried to undermined the Judeo Christian culture that America was founded upon...

Don't, don't do that. I'm am so sick and tired of the issues being sidestepped by launching counter accusations. Both sides do it and it gets us nowhere. What is your point? That because you perceive Obama to have been racist its okay for Trump to be too? That's ridiculous whether your view of Obama is accurate or not. Just muddying the waters.

Trump and his presidency is now and justification or avoidance of his mistakes by saying 'obama did it' is a childish schoolyard mentality.

I don't know which way the Washington Free Beacon leans, but I think it's a shame that that's the first thing I wonder whenever I read an article nowadays.

Quote:

EDIT: The Washington Free Beacon is a conservative website. Still, they are reporting what the Virginia State Police stated.

Well, regardless of WFB's political slant, the article didn't seem to perpetuate any bias.

Still, the VSP are currently under heavy scrutiny due to their lack of response to the violence. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that things transpired (such as shootings) that they might not be aware of.

But the guy's not going to say "I brought a spray paint and a lighter to attack Nazis". According to the Virginia State Police, no shots were fired during the protests.

Quote:

His is the only account that offers any context to the photo.

Quote:

That said, you're right; other than making an assumption using body language, there's no way of knowing who the instigator was. So to claim that it's Antifa (as Jesusfan did) is just as faulty.

I agree. There's no telling who started it. But, there's no gun in the photo, either. If what he said is true, this isn't self-defense but retaliation. The Nazi could've been assaulting him with his flag, but we don't know. Has anyone corroborated Corey Long's account? A gunshot fired into the ground with people around would be noticed and most likely reported. It would also leave evidence that any reporter should be able to find. But at this point, all we have and probably all we will get is the photo and one person's account. It's pretty amazing that someone got that photo given that the flame probably only lasted a second or two.

As a continuation of my first post from yesterday, the reporter that I heard about on the radio was Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the NY Times. She tweeted that " The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding "antifa" beating white nationalists being led out of the park". She then switched "hate-filled" to violent, and then deleted the post all together because of the backlash she recieved. I find it disgraceful that a New York Times reporter would supress news due to pressure from twitter.

I don't know which way the Washington Free Beacon leans, but I think it's a shame that that's the first thing I wonder whenever I read an article nowadays.

Quote:

Quote:

EDIT: The Washington Free Beacon is a conservative website. Still, they are reporting what the Virginia State Police stated.

Quote:

Well, regardless of WFB's political slant, the article didn't seem to perpetuate any bias.

Quote:

Still, the VSP are currently under heavy scrutiny due to their lack of response to the violence. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that things transpired (such as shootings) that they might not be aware of.

I agree. Aside from their statement, no one else seems to think that the VSP handled things perfectly.
We will be having protests in Boston tomorrow but I don't foresee things getting out of hand. If they do, there'll be plenty of footage to analyze because they are putting cameras up everywhere.

Looking at the pictures, videos and mugshots of that debacle I thought of this.

I think I see what you're going for here, but it's a dangerous argument to make. Someone's physical appearance should have no bearing on the validity of their opinion. An ugly opinion is ugly regardless of how attractive or unattractive the mouth it comes from.

Many of the racist, antisemetic marchers had strong chins, with square jaws. Many were tall, and muscular...the physical opposite of the picture you posted. Does that alter how acceptable we should find their statements?

Looking at the pictures, videos and mugshots of that debacle I thought of this.

Quote:

I think I see what you're going for here, but it's a dangerous argument to make. Someone's physical appearance should have no bearing on the validity of their opinion. An ugly opinion is ugly regardless of how attractive or unattractive the mouth it comes from.

No. You're being far too literal

Quote:

Many of the racist, antisemetic marchers had strong chins, with square jaws. Many were tall, and muscular...the physical opposite of the picture you posted. Does that alter how acceptable we should find their statements?

Trump said, “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now.” That false equivalency is revealed as soon as you answer which side hit people with a car and killed someone from the other. Hint: it wasn’t the “very violent” side.

The fact that one hateful person one side proved to be more deadly does not change the fact that both sides were violent. The Antifa group showed up with helmets, clubs and other weapons. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and they got what they wanted. Antifa are in many cases violence junkies. Violence for many of them is the preferred method of enacting change. Before the outrage against Trump, this was an accepted fact.

Neither article is from what anyone could consider a right-wing source, yet both frame the two groups similar to Trump.

The AP story says "Adversaries fought", and they "beat each other with clubs". There is no weight of blame placed on the pro-nazi group. Similarly the Times story places no weight of blame on the pro-nazi group. And they recognize the frequent violence of Antifa.

Members of Antifa have assaulted journalists. Such as this one from a local CBS station who was sent to the hospital and needed stitches in his head:

That Antifa is very violent is a fact. That there was violence on both sides is a fact.

Quote:

Trump has called out everyone under the sun by name when he wants to lambast them. He criticized Obama for not using the words “Islamic terrorism.” Trump never minces words unless he’s purposefully equivocating. What is he equivocating here? Racist hatemongers and their protesters when he says that “many sides” are to blame for the violence in Charlottesville and he emphasized the words “many sides” by repeating them.

On a very technical level, that’s true. If protesters weren’t there, they wouldn’t have clashed with the racists. If Heather Heyer had not been there, an alt-right neo-Nazi would not have killed her. But she was there and she was killed. Is she responsible or is James Fields, Jr., the man who purposefully ran her over with a car? Trump thinks both Heyer and Fields are to blame!

It is disgusting to say that Trump put any blame on Heather Heyer. The different sides Trump referres to is to the hateful nazi group, and to the Antifa group.

Quote:

Trump’s blaming both sides is only important if the message he’s trying to convey is a wink to the white supremacists who helped put Trump in office that he is sympathetic to them. And this is exactly how many white supremacists have interpreted it.

Incorrect. Trump's blaming both sides is important to anyone interested in the truth of what happened that day.

Quote:

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke responded, “Thank you President Trump for your honesty and courage to tell the truth.” White nationalist leader Richard B. Spencer wrote, “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth.” Chuck Schumer fittingly remarked, “By saying he is not taking sides, Donald Trump clearly is. When David Duke and white supremacists cheer, you’re doing it very, very wrong.”

I've mentioned in previous posts that the faults of individuals should not be placed on the politicians they support. Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen, who shot up the Orlando nightclub, was a big Hillary supporter. He also supports the Taliban. Should we make a connection between the Mateens and Hillary which puts their beliefs on her? No, we shouldn't.

Robert Byrd was also a member of the KKK and Hillary Clinton's mentor. Bill Clinton excused Byrd's membership in that ugly organization by saying he did it just to get elected. Is spouting ugly racist slogans and recruitment for the KKK okay as long as it gets you elected as a democrat? The Clintons seem to think so. The outrage regarding KKK supporters is strangely one-sided.

William Fulbright has been cited by Bill Clinton as one of his mentors. Hillary's name shares the title of the "J. William Fulbright-Hillary Rodham Clinton Public Policy Fellowship". Fulbright was a horrible racist who opposed Hawaii statehood due to the non-white inhabitants. He also not only signed the Southern Manifesto, he helped edit it. Yet the Clintons get a pass here again. I'm not claiming guilt by association. I'm not saying the Clintons are racists because they freely associate with many racists, but that seems to be your logic.

Al Gore Sr. was also a horrible racist. How many times was his sone asked to repudiate the father's racist legacy when Gore Jr. was running for VP or President? None that I'm aware of, but if he was, it certainly wasn't as many times as Trump has been asked to repudiate a man he never met. And it's my opinion that Gore shouldn't have to answer for faults of his father.

I propose we keep conversations to the direct people being discussed, and not try to paint people with sins of associates or supporters.

Quote:

That Trump even took two days to denounce the white nationalists who lauded his name at the Charlottesville rally speaks volumes. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch tweeted, “We should call evil by its name. My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” But it’s clear now that Trump’s denunciation of white supremacists on Monday was forced upon him by staff, that he resented it,

It's not clear that it was forced upon him or that he resented that. You don't know that. You're simply making things up. If I'm wrong, provide evidence. I'm looking for evidence, not what you think or feel. Otherwise this is no different than birthers claiming they "know" Obama's sympathies are with muslim terrorists. Your're trafficing in the same style personal attacks.

Quote:

and because he has no discipline,

That Trump needs to discipline his reactions I agree with.

Quote:

he couldn’t keep that bottled in and went on his tirade yesterday. The message is clear. The context – Obama birtherism, Mexican rapists, the Muslim ban, the transgender ban, the wall – is clear. Trump’s only defense is to engage in the vagueness of plausible deniability. For any other contemporary president, this would have been a no-brainer. Other Republicans like Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, Lindsay Graham, Will Hurd, John Kasich, John McCain, Jerry Moran, and Marco Rubio all criticized Trump by name for his reaction.

Quote:

Trump defenders can only talk about how some of what he said was technically true while completely missing the spirit of what he said.

The spirit of what he said? I think this is a little like the three blind men and the elephant. I heard him say:

- "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides." You may not like that he places blame for violence on both the nazi group and Antifa, but he certain condemned hatred and bigotry. Why is that ignored?

- "No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first."

- "we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country, where things like this can happen."

- "We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other."

- "I love the people of our country. I love all of the people of our country."

The way the speech has been reported it's as if he didn't say any of that. As if all he did was include Antifa in his blame of the violence. But that was only a small part. Much of the speech was about love and uniting as a country.

There was outrage that he blamed both sides for the violence. Many people wanted him to call out the nazi group specifically, and so in his following speech he did. And in that speech he said:

- "We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty, that bring us together as Americans."

- "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

- "We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator."

- "we will work together so that every citizen in this blessed land is free to follow their dreams, in their hearts, and to express the love and joy in their souls."

Yet still, you want to believe Trump is racist. I'm guessing nothing will convince you otherwise.

Quote:

Some other Republicans get this. Republican Rep, Ed Royce, wrote, “The President needs to clearly and categorically reject white supremacists. No excuses. No ambiguity.” Jeb Bush wrote, “I urge POTUS to unite the country, not parse the assignment of blame for the events in Charlottesville.” Mitch McConnell stated, “There are no good neo-Nazis, and those who espouse their views are not supporters of American ideals and freedoms.” Mitt Romney tweeted, “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

I reject the simplistic idea that anyone who engages in violence against those with nazi beliefs is automatically morally different. The biggest nazi killer in history was Joseph Stalin. Are we to glorify Stalin for being against nazis? Are we to say that Hitler and Stalin are in "morally different universes"? Both were evil men. Is my saying "Both were evil men" a pro-nazi statement? Individuals should be judged individually. Just because Antifa were against the nazi group does not make Antifa "good guys".

Quote:

Even if a few Southerners don’t see statues of Confederate leaders and generals as racist, that’s an extreme degree of compartmentalizing. These Confederates fought to uphold slavery. That’s is their claim to fame and they shouldn’t be honored for that. Aside from the rare neo-Nazi, you don’t see Germans clamoring for Hitler statues even though Hitler is part of their heritage. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis committed treason, they were traitors to their country, their actions in the Civil War led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands, and they tried to perpetuate slavery, the most abhorrent institution ever established in the United States of America. Why should that be honored? Also note that most of these statues and monuments were erected between 1900 and 1930, the era of Jim Crow laws, and again between 1956-1965, the era of the civil rights movement. These were times when racial conflict was highest and the messaging behind these monuments is white supremacy.

Quote:

Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides,” which is a purely subjective claim that can’t be proven, but again, it clearly sends a positive message to the white supremacists. Anyone’s willingness to march alongside the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis chanting “Sieg Heil” and “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us” while carrying swastikas calls into question where their moral compass lies. Here are some examples of the hate on display at that rally:

Trump’s insinuation that George Washington is under attack because Robert E. Lee is under attack is about as disingenuous as James Woods implying that the Marine Corps War Memorial is the equivalent of Robert E. Lee statues in the eyes of the left.

George Washington owned slaves in a time in which that was acceptable and he freed his slaves in his will. George Washington signed the Slave Trade Act of 1794 to curb the slave trade, and he did not actively fight to sustain slavery as an institution when times had changed to make slavery an even graver moral issue. A George Washington statue is not implicitly pro-slavery any more than it’s pro-dentures. It’s to celebrate Washington’s part in the American Revolution and creating the United States of America. A Robert E. Lee statue is implicitly pro-slavery. What are you celebrating about him if not that? That’s what he fought for, that’s what he’s known for, and he’d be an afterthought to history had he not done so.

Trump didn't equate Robert E. Lee to George Washington. You are making a false argument. Trump stated that the current movement to get rid of Confederate statues would eventually lead to similar attacks against Washington and Jefferson. As shown above, he was absolutely, provably right.

Quote:

If Trump can’t understand that, he’s not smart enough to be President of the United States.

Maybe he's smarter than you think, since his prediction here was accurate.

Quote:

Let’s face it, we have a Racist in Chief now.

Let's face it....your personal attacks and name calling are on the level of those who called Obama "muslim in chief". Name calling is childish and immature.

I am not sure what you are going on about there. Counter protesting white supremacists groups is now radical left? I missed the part where the counter protests killed anybody. Or surrounded those against them with torches and guns.

Look at the picture of armed Antifa members in the NY Times story below.

Quote:

The president has claimed there was a radical left fraction there in order to make it a both sides do it situation. I am sure there were tussels. But not sure how this can be made out to be anything but horror at what a fair number of white supremacists did.

Quote:

I have only heard Trump and his defenders in the media make any claims like that.

Then you have not been paying attention.

The fact that one hateful person one side proved to be more deadly does not change the fact that both sides were violent. The Antifa group showed up with helmets, clubs and other weapons. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and they got what they wanted. Antifa are in many cases violence junkies. Violence for many of them is the preferred method of enacting change. Before the outrage against Trump, this was an accepted fact.

Neither article is from what anyone could consider a right-wing source, yet both frame the two groups similar to Trump.

The AP story says "Adversaries fought", and they "beat each other with clubs". There is no weight of blame placed on the pro-nazi group. Similarly the Times story places no weight of blame on the pro-nazi group. And they recognize the frequent violence of Antifa.

Members of Antifa have assaulted journalists. Such as this one from a local CBS station who was sent to the hospital and needed stitches in his head:

That Antifa is very violent is a fact. That there was violence on both sides is a fact.

The nazi morons are horrible, ugly, disgusting people. We can agree on that. But when they have a permit to gather and speak, then they need to be allowed to do so. Counter groups are certainly also allowed, but violence on either side is wrong. When a counter group showed up in helmets, with guns, and clubs, and bottles of urine to throw at people, that's a problem. And when violence does break out, yes, if both sides come armed and looking for violence, then both sides are to blame for the general violence.

Blame for the death of that poor woman is on the man driving the car.

It would have been such a preferable situation if the ignorant nazi group were mocked or ignored, instead of confronted violently. They love this attention. I never heard the name Richard Spencer until he was punched on the street. Now he's become a hero to these hate-filled ugly people. We would have been better off if he had not been assaulted on film.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

Quote:

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

Quote:

So which side did the killing again? Only the alt-right side. I don't see how you can be a Jesus Fan while defending racists. I can't believe I'm quoting Mitt Romney: No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

This is no defense of the opinions of the nazi group, they are an ugly stain on humanity. But you either believe in right to free speech, or you don't. The nazi group, as repugnant as I find what they were saying, had every right to be there.

The Antifa group, as counter protesters, also had every right to be there.

But both groups were planning this violence. They both showed up with helemts, guns, bats and clubs. They both wanted that fight. The moral preening against nazis is overbearing. These are not actual nazis from WWII. They are ignorant people with horrible, vomitus opinions. And you don't have to agree with their opinion to acknowledge the other side was there to cause violence.

Only the nazi group killed someone. But everyone seems to have arrived at the opinion that the murder of Heather Heyer excuses the violence of the Antifa group. Antifa are a very violent organization, and they put put multiple innocent bystanders in the hospital that day. Why is that being ignored in the conversation?

Those who admire nazis are bad people, yes, but that doesn't automatically make anyone they are fighting morally superior.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

Quote:

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

Quote:

Okay. But trying to equate these two sides to one another only serves to validate supremacy (be it white or otherwise) as a respectable ideology, which it isn't. History has shown that going down this road ends in a massive detriment to society.

Quote:

There's no moral ambiguity between white supremacists and the people who protest against them, and if you're taking a neutral position between the two then you're pretty much part of the problem.

I disagree. Joseph Stalin killed more nazis than anyone. I'm referring to actual nazis, not the ignorant, racist, antisemetic low-lives we saw on display in Charlottesville. There was certainly moral abiguity when Stalin rolled tanks into Poland and "freed" them from nazis. An extreme case to be sure, but the point is made that there can be moral ambiguity, and not everyone who is punching a nazi is a hero.

The Antifa thugs are known for violence. They showed up looking for violence. This was not the case of a peace full group of local people, who once being pushed by the nazi group pushed back.

I am 100% not validating (as you claim) supremacy as a respectable ideology by believing in the right to free speech for those I vehemently disagree with. They should be shunned by everyone, they should be ignored and mocked. Their repugnant ideas should be opposed with enlightened speech. But violence against people who's opinions we don't like is not the answer.

There were HUNDREDS of the left socialist groups, you know, the very ones that rioted and caused all of that damage on inaguration day!

Quote:

There is alot to unpack age here.

Quote:

1. Being a left or liberal leaning group does not make the group socialist. No more than a conservative group would be the same as a hate group in and of itself.

You're right, it doesn't. But there were actual anti-capitalist, communist groups there. You don't seem to be familiar with all the facts.

Quote:

2. What does inaugration day have to do with the current issue?

Quote:

3. The counter protests were much smaller than the main protests in the recent example.

Quote:

Quote:

Just saying that both the extreme right AND left were willing to fight to the death there...

Quote:

You are going to need to be clearer. Who did the left kill at the recent event? And if you are comparing moral equivalency than are those with Nazi and confederate flags with torches and guns now on equal footing with unarmed counter protesters?

If you believe the counter protesters were unarmed, then again, you are not informed of all the facts.

Is that what the right is now? If extreme left is standing against that than I think we should be very afraid for the direction of the country if accepting that sort of hatred is ok.

Quote:

You have to define what you mean by "accepting" hatred. Do you include allowing people who have a legal permit for a public space to exercise free speech? If so, then yes, we have to accept hatred. We can shun people with rotten, hate-filled hearts, we can ignore them, we can oppose their speech with enlightened speech. But we cannot condone violence against them *before* they have acted against anyone.

And lets be clear the murder of Heather Heyer was after the violence started and escalated out of control. I hope James Fields punished as far as the law will allow.

But the murder of Heather Heyer is being used to retroactively excuse the violence of the counter protesters. The violence erupted first. Counter protesters came fully armed first. The fighting between groups occurred first. The murder of poor Heather Heyer does not mean violence on behalf of the counter protesters was valid.